BRISTOL, Florida — A Panhandle jury took roughly an hour on Thursday to declare suspended Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch not guilty of misconduct stemming from his decision to intervene in a gun arrest.

Finch fought back tears as he hugged his wife and daughter following the acquittal on charges of official misconduct and falsifying public records, which carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment upon conviction. He later praised the six men and women who served on the jury during the three-day trial.

"This just proves Liberty County is a good place to live and raise your children," Finch said. "There are good people here."

Several hours after the verdict was reached, Gov. Rick Scott, who suspended Finch after his arrest, issued an executive order to immediately reinstate him.

Finch was arrested in June after prosecutors alleged he had destroyed official records related to the March arrest of Floyd Eugene Parrish. Parrish was arrested by one of Finch's deputies during a traffic stop for carrying a pistol in his pocket without a concealed weapons permit. Two hours later, Finch arrived at the jail and had Parrish released. Finch said he released Parrish because he did not believe state gun laws should trump the Second Amendment.

hmmmmm so the guy was breaking the law an a sworn an elected sheriff decided to ignore the law an set him free? I applaud his thoughts on the second amendment but it also shows how leos can an will destroy evidence an lie to help or hurt people that do or don't fit there ideals .

If he was all for guys smoking crack or making meth or ignoring illegals would we still be on his side ?

I agree with his ideals im not sure i need LEO,s making up the laws as they go. I also feel it good to get a break once in while if your a good honest hard working citizen an I have gotten a few in my life from LEO's

What I do like is the jury also voiced that the second should not be infringed on . I guess im glad he is free as I agree with his ideal IM not sure every guy with a gun in his pocket ignoring the law is a good guy however . If that guy ever does anything wrong the sheriff will look like a idiot . HMMMMMMM Im a little mixed

The Second Amendment is the law. In fact it is The Supreme Law of The Land. It trumps local and state laws. It was found to be an Incorporated Right meaning that it is a basic human right that transcends boundaries between the states. Now that some states simply ignore the SCOTUS decision is something else entirely, however, the actions of Sheriff Finch were correct under the Supreme Law of the land and the jury agreed. I find in amusing that statists like the Persecuter are unhappy but am not surprised. This is why many people favor the "Fully Informed Jury Act" where juries are informed that they have the right to judge the law as well as the individual and if the law is wrong they can simply acquit the defendent. It is what northern juries did to acquit runaway slaves of the terrible crime of being runaway slaves. I would just be happy if we returned to following The Constitution Of The United States Of America. But that is very unlikely since SCOTUS doesn't really want to hear cases based on "Individual" or "Constitutional" rights and local authoritarians love to have power over the lives of others. Power is apparently an intoxicating drug for power mad bureacrats, enforcers, justices and politicians. As I said, it is refreshing to see a jury "nullify" a bad local law and refer to the Supreme Law of the land.

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America , you get a front row seat. - George Carlin

As I said, it is refreshing to see a jury "nullify" a bad local law and refer to the Supreme Law of the land.

I like the way that sounds.

Whatever site I read it on as a members tag line, it's the truest statement ever made.
"Our forefathers would have been shooting by now"
They would have a long time ago, when our government became self serving and lied so openly that the taste of disgust can't be cleared with bleach.
WTF happened to our country?
member # 575

SO IF THE GUY HE LET GO WAS A CRACK HEAD DADDY RAPER YOU WOULD BE OK WITH THAT TO ?

i KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AN I ALSO KNOW THE GUYS WHO WROTE IT ALSO FOLLOWED RULES INCLUDING SOME GUN RULES AN LAWS . IM SURE THEY DID NOT HAND EVER NUT A MURDERER A GUN BACK.

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION I COULD HAVE NUKE IN MY BACK YARD AN SO COULD EVER WACK JOB ALSO .

THERE IS COMMON SENCE . THE SHERRIF IS SWORN TO UP HOLD THE LAW . ALL LAWS NIT JUST THE ONES HE FEELS IS RIGHT .

IM GLAD THE GUY WAS LET GO AN IM GLAD THE SHERIFF GOT OFF . HOWEVER IM FIND IT A LITTLE UNSETTLING HE PICKS AN CHOOSES WHAT FITS HIS PERSONAL AGENDA . GOOD THING HE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF METH HEADS AN SCREWING HORSES AS THE CONSTITUTION LIKEY SAYS THATS OK ALSO .

SO DOES THIS SHERIFF LET EVERY ONE FOUND WITH A GUN GO? OR JUST THOSE HE DECIDES ARE OK ?

THERE IS THE CONSTITUTION AN THERE IS COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE SAYS IF YOU GO AROUND THINKING THAT ALL THE GUN LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS ARE INVALID YOU WILL LIKLEY GO TO JAIL LIKE THOUSANDS OF OTHER GUYS WHO BROKE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS . THEY MAY BE ALL INICOENT BUT THAT LITTLE HELP WHEN YOUR IN JAIL.

DONT GET ME WRONG. I PERSONALLY FEEL A PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY WITH NO PERMIT ANY ARM WITH IN REASON . . I DONT THINK THE CONSTITUTION WOULD FAVOR ME OWNING A NUKE. I DOUBT ANY ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THAT MUCH POWER OVER OTHERS OR BE A THREAT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD .
SO WERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE , NUKES, BALLISTIC MISSILES, WAR PLANES, MACHINE GUNS, FLAME THROWERES , HAND GERNADES , POISNIOUS GAS, HICAP MAG FEED GUNS, SHORT BARRELD SHOT GUNS, PISTOLS ???????? . WERE DO YOU SAY OK WE CANT HAVE SOME WITH THIS MUCH MORE POWER THAN EVERY ONE ELSE .

IF EVER PERSON HAD UNLIMITED ACESS TO LARGE SCA;E WEAPONS LIKE NUKES THE usa WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY BLOW UP YEARS AGO AN BE NON EXISTENT .

I WOULD NOT TRUST A SINGLE PERSON I KNOW WITH A NUKE . HELL I WOULD NOT TRUST MYSELF . THERE ARE SOME FLAWS IN OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION . THE FACT OUR FORE FATHERS GOULD NOT INVISION .

BUT YOU GOT TO ASK YOUR SELVES IS THERE A SINGLE ONE OF YOU THAT WOULD TRUST ME WITH A NUKE ? THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ITS OK FOR ME TO HAVE IT.

i HAVE FREE SPEECH DOES THAT MEAN I CAN YELL FIRE IN A THEATER .

T HE PROBLEM i HAVE IS IF GROUPS USE THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND THERE EVERY ACTION REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD THAT ACTION IS PEOPLE WILL EVENTUALLY SAY SCREW THIS AN WE WILL WILL LOSE THOSE RIGHTS . JUST BECAUSE SOME THING IS LEGAL DOSENT MAKE IT A GOOD IDEA TO DO ALL THE TIME . IF ABUSED THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED AN CHANGED AN THATS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF IDIOTS KEEP SHOOTING SCHOOLS AN AIRPORTS AN WHAT NOT .

I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN I FEEL IT IS THE CORNER STONE FOR THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT KNOWN TO MAN . HOW EVER LIKE EVERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER KNOWN TO MAN IT WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL . THE USA IS A VERY VERY YOUNG COUNTRY AN TIME WILL TELL IF IT STAYS AS IT IS OR BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE . CLEARLY THERE ARE FLAWS OR WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION

Point is the sheriff obeyed the law. He obeyed the Supreme Law as per his duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. The jury also did its job by judging the "crime" and judging the law. I see nothing done wrong here except by a few local statists attempting to usurp the Superior law.

If you want to change the US Constitution there is a process already established to do just that. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment then the process should be pursued and carried out. Just don't ignore the US Constitution and enforce clearly unconstitutional laws - just change the US Constitution if that is what you want. Personally I have no problem with the US Constitution in its current form - the only problem is that the government simply ignores the Supreme Law of the land and the Supreme Court as willing accomplices refuse to hear most important challenges to unconstitutional laws. Would be nice if this country actually obeyed its own laws for a change.

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America , you get a front row seat. - George Carlin

SO IF THE GUY HE LET GO WAS A CRACK HEAD DADDY RAPER YOU WOULD BE OK WITH THAT TO ?

i KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AN I ALSO KNOW THE GUYS WHO WROTE IT ALSO FOLLOWED RULES INCLUDING SOME GUN RULES AN LAWS . IM SURE THEY DID NOT HAND EVER NUT A MURDERER A GUN BACK.

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION I COULD HAVE NUKE IN MY BACK YARD AN SO COULD EVER WACK JOB ALSO .

THERE IS COMMON SENCE . THE SHERRIF IS SWORN TO UP HOLD THE LAW . ALL LAWS NIT JUST THE ONES HE FEELS IS RIGHT .

IM GLAD THE GUY WAS LET GO AN IM GLAD THE SHERIFF GOT OFF . HOWEVER IM FIND IT A LITTLE UNSETTLING HE PICKS AN CHOOSES WHAT FITS HIS PERSONAL AGENDA . GOOD THING HE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF METH HEADS AN SCREWING HORSES AS THE CONSTITUTION LIKEY SAYS THATS OK ALSO .

SO DOES THIS SHERIFF LET EVERY ONE FOUND WITH A GUN GO? OR JUST THOSE HE DECIDES ARE OK ?

THERE IS THE CONSTITUTION AN THERE IS COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE SAYS IF YOU GO AROUND THINKING THAT ALL THE GUN LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS ARE INVALID YOU WILL LIKLEY GO TO JAIL LIKE THOUSANDS OF OTHER GUYS WHO BROKE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS . THEY MAY BE ALL INICOENT BUT THAT LITTLE HELP WHEN YOUR IN JAIL.

DONT GET ME WRONG. I PERSONALLY FEEL A PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY WITH NO PERMIT ANY ARM WITH IN REASON . . I DONT THINK THE CONSTITUTION WOULD FAVOR ME OWNING A NUKE. I DOUBT ANY ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THAT MUCH POWER OVER OTHERS OR BE A THREAT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD .
SO WERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE , NUKES, BALLISTIC MISSILES, WAR PLANES, MACHINE GUNS, FLAME THROWERES , HAND GERNADES , POISNIOUS GAS, HICAP MAG FEED GUNS, SHORT BARRELD SHOT GUNS, PISTOLS ???????? . WERE DO YOU SAY OK WE CANT HAVE SOME WITH THIS MUCH MORE POWER THAN EVERY ONE ELSE .

IF EVER PERSON HAD UNLIMITED ACESS TO LARGE SCA;E WEAPONS LIKE NUKES THE usa WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY BLOW UP YEARS AGO AN BE NON EXISTENT .

I WOULD NOT TRUST A SINGLE PERSON I KNOW WITH A NUKE . HELL I WOULD NOT TRUST MYSELF . THERE ARE SOME FLAWS IN OUR BELOVED CONSTITUTION . THE FACT OUR FORE FATHERS GOULD NOT INVISION .

BUT YOU GOT TO ASK YOUR SELVES IS THERE A SINGLE ONE OF YOU THAT WOULD TRUST ME WITH A NUKE ? THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ITS OK FOR ME TO HAVE IT.

i HAVE FREE SPEECH DOES THAT MEAN I CAN YELL FIRE IN A THEATER .

T HE PROBLEM i HAVE IS IF GROUPS USE THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND THERE EVERY ACTION REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD THAT ACTION IS PEOPLE WILL EVENTUALLY SAY SCREW THIS AN WE WILL WILL LOSE THOSE RIGHTS . JUST BECAUSE SOME THING IS LEGAL DOSENT MAKE IT A GOOD IDEA TO DO ALL THE TIME . IF ABUSED THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED AN CHANGED AN THATS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF IDIOTS KEEP SHOOTING SCHOOLS AN AIRPORTS AN WHAT NOT .

I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN I FEEL IT IS THE CORNER STONE FOR THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT KNOWN TO MAN . HOW EVER LIKE EVERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER KNOWN TO MAN IT WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL . THE USA IS A VERY VERY YOUNG COUNTRY AN TIME WILL TELL IF IT STAYS AS IT IS OR BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE . CLEARLY THERE ARE FLAWS OR WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION

I wasn't going to reply, but I'll bite.

This site says it well, http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htmThe Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

"What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for."

The Nukes argument is one that I've heard before - both from gun owners and from anti's. It tends to make us look silly when defending the 2nd Amendment. One needs to look at the word "arms" from the perspective of the time frame the Constitution was written and not from what modern usage has given it. To look at it from the time frame of the Constitution, "arms" from a Common Law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons.

This puts it into perspective, we should not only look at the Constitution and how it is worded, but how our countries Founders intended it. So are nukes used by the infantry?

"To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
Ted Nugent - speaking at the NRA convention April 17, 2005